bindex:

Another meaningless apologetics, I was talking about John 6:44 if you read my post I was precise when i said John 6: 44 never said any such thing. You quickly went ahead and quoted a verse from James, is James what we are talking about or the passage in John? . All we get are a bunch of desperate apologies all the time that don't even address the matter at hand.

Because . . . silly . . . you cant take a verse in isolation and start building a theology on it. But that is of course the modus operandi of those who read the bible TO FIND FAULTS rather than understand it. you cant read John 6:44 and throw James 4:8 into the dustbin because it doesnt agree with your pre-concieved bias.

bindex:

Again more desperate attempts to say things that the bible does not say. The bible does not mention the word free will if i am correct. If you want to quote verses out of the bible to buttress your point I can as well do the same. There is no such thing as free will in the bible.

I repeat James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

the "drawing nigh" here is of your own free will . . . no one will forcefully draw you. the bible doesnt need to put "freewill" in block letters before you understand what it means.

bindex:

These verses completely tell a different story, it goes against your claim that you have to move close to god of your own free will. It talks about the god of the bible knowing people even before they chose him and having already predestined them to be called and conformed to the image of his son.

Ah i thought we were only discussing John 6:44 . . . where did Romans come from? Thou hypocrite, it is OK [/b]for you to orush to use other verses to explain your non-point . . . but it is [b]NOT OK for me to quote James 4 to buttress John 6?

At the verses you again misquote, mangle and dishonestly twist out of context . . . the bible is not saying that God specifically hand-picked only a certain people to be saved and condemned the rest to hell. It simply states that God . . . being omnipresent (knowing the end from the begining) already knows those who would bother to draw themselves to Him.

bindex:

Here again the bible says a very different thing all together, it says god choses to do what ever he wants to do with people, It clearly says that it depends not on human will or exertion but on god who has mercy because he hardens whomever he wills or has mercy on whom ever he will. This goes completely against the free will agrument because this passages says humans he chose those he wants in him before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and blameless before him. no free will, god decideds to do with them what ever he pleases. Again this goes against what you said that you will have to go near to god first, The bible here clearly says that God choses those he wants to save and those he wants to condem by hardening their hearts according to his own will.


Again this verse goes against all what you have said about people having to accept Christ because the bible here says that God has already chosen Christians unto him before the foundations of the earth, he had already predestined Christians for adoption as his sons according to the purpose of HIS will not their will. Again here no such thing as FREE WILL

Again these verse goes against what you have said, god has already predestined people unto him according to his will.


As mazaje said on the other thread these are very strong "evidence" for Christians since you believe this stuffs then there is no "free will". I am tired of Christians Just cutting and patching bible verses to mean what they want them to mean. I wonder what the verse in John has to do with what another verse in James.

Again we have a whole laundry list of verses that are CERTAINLY NOT John 6:44 . . . what was that he was bleating about talking only about John 6:44 again? hypocrites.

bindex:

If you don't see the differenc then its either you are stupid, a liar or you haven't read the passages.

the only difference here is your own shoddy or crass lack of understanding. James (like other passages) says the onus is on us to accept the sacrifice of the cross, repent of our sins and approach God in humble worship. John 6 however lets us know that it is NOT by ourselves that we are accepted of Him, it is Christ who accepts us to Himself AFTER we have willingly submitted ourselves to Him.

bindex:

The father GRANTS everything ACCORDING to his will. If you like you can draw closer to the father but if he doesn't want or doesn't feel like granting you the chance, you will do it in vain. EVERYTHING depends on the WILL of the father according to the bible. Again I do not believe in all these but pls stop lying for Jesus.

That nonsense is not supported anywhere in the bible . . . perhaps you can show us where you found it.

davidylan:

Because . . . silly . . . you cant take a verse in isolation and start building a theology on it. But that is of course the modus operandi of those who read the bible TO FIND FAULTS rather than understand it. you cant read John 6:44 and throw James 4:8 into the dustbin because it doesnt agree with your pre-concieved bias.

I repeat James 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

the "drawing nigh" here is of your own free will . . . no one will forcefully draw you. the bible doesnt need to put "freewill" in block letters before you understand what it means.

Only that you are lying again. The bible says that God draws those he wants to draw unto him according to his will so your free will argument has been debunked.

A

h i thought we were only discussing John 6:44 . . . where did Romans come from? Thou hypocrite, it is OK [/b]for you to orush to use other verses to explain your non-point . . . but it is [b]NOT OK for me to quote James 4 to buttress John 6?

Did you bother to read my post and see what I said? or did you just make this post because you want to say something?

At the verses you again misquote, mangle and dishonestly twist out of context . . . the bible is not saying that God specifically hand-picked only a certain people to be saved and condemned the rest to hell. It simply states that God . . . being omnipresent (knowing the end from the begining) already knows those who would bother to draw themselves to Him.

Again this is a VERY big LIE, this what you are saying not what the bible says.

Rom 9:16  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19  You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Rom 9:22  What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23  in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Again we have a whole laundry list of verses that are CERTAINLY NOT John 6:44 . . . what was that he was bleating about talking only about John 6:44 again? hypocrites

Read my post once again.

davidylan:

the only difference here is your own shoddy or crass lack of understanding. James (like other passages) says the onus is on us to accept the sacrifice of the cross, repent of our sins and approach God in humble worship. John 6 however lets us know that it is NOT by ourselves that we are accepted of Him, it is Christ who accepts us to Himself AFTER we have willingly submitted ourselves to Him.

Again you are just going round in a circle. Other verses say other wise. John 6 says no such thing.

That nonsense is not supported anywhere in the bible . . . perhaps you can show us where you found it.

Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills

Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

bindex:

Only that you are lying again. The bible says that God draws those he wants to draw unto him according to his will so your free will argument has been debunked.

Well sorry that God didnt feel inclined to draw you then. Go hit your head on the wall and wait patiently for a sorrowful judgement.

Bastage:

It's not easy to explain but I'll try and give you a general idea.

Everything we choose in this world is not done with freedom as we may think. Everything. We are coerced in some way by our reality.

I believe that God is beyond reality and therefore using a reason based in the material to choose Him is self-defeating. And as the only reasons we have are material then not having a reason is the logical thing to do.

Interesting ideas Bastage, I do wonder what people in psychiatrist or psychology would have to say about them.
I just have the following to say about the sections I've made bold.

1. According to you God is beyond reality right? but we live in reality how then can one relate to something that is beyond reality using reality based concepts like prayer e.t.c.

2. How can your reality based mind really comprehend a God beyond reality? how then can anyone claim to be speaking for such a God beyond reality? or that anything such a god does is of any significance in reality

3. If god is beyond reality, why bother with him when we live in reality? 

4. In a way, can there ever be a single definition/classification of something beyond reality? or in other words doesn't each person/society therefore define this esoteric being in his/their own way i.e. creating their own gods?

5. Can't we all just face up to the truth that we are all groping in the dark here?

Bastage:

As Huxley has pointed out in his first post, many people choose for those reasons. When they do, I believe that they are not seeing the whole picture, they're letting material yearnings dictate their choice. It's therefore not a free choice.

If you are not able to make a free choice you are choosing for a reason. That reason is for yourself. I don't follow God for myself, to me, that would be self-serving and not really following Him. Therefore, the only reason I can have for following him is no reason thus meaning that I freely choose.

I hope that makes sense.

I don't think Huxley or anyone can exhaust the possible reasons why people may believe in god and your reasoning (in my opinion) is a bit convoluted since it doesn't reside in reality. I would rather say that you have made up or you are making up your god as you go along and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The difference between lunacy and genius is often a thin line.

Image123:

@duduspace
you'll not find John6v44 so disturbing or confusing if you're a student of the Word. If you just take the pain to read the book of John complete, you'll find your answers. Its in the same John's gospel that Jesus talks about Searching the scriptures.
John 3:14,15
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be LIFTED UP: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Note that word 'lifted up' and turn to John 12v32.
And I, if I be LIFTED UP from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
If you're collected enough, you notice that Jesus says He'll draw all men. All men have been drawn, it is left for each individual to humble himself before God and He'll lift you up. His hands are outstretched while it is called Today, if you respond by stretching your own, He'll lift you up. Thats the 'much touted' free-will we're talking about. It is not God's will that any should perish but that all should COME to repentance. It takes your coming before you can be a christian. It take
s your FOLLOWING even after coming. Only followers are true christians.

Point of correction, the verse itself is not confusing or disturbing in anyway rather it is the fact that most of the biblical verses quoted by christians are usually twisted as they seem fit, considered literal in some instances and viewed as metaphors in others. It is so bad atimes that you wonder who lies more in christians and lawyers.

Now that you have more clearly explained your initial statement, is it safe for me then to assume that the response you intended to make to Huxley's original question is simply that you are a christian because god called you and you answered him right?

davidylan:

Well sorry that God didnt feel inclined to draw you then. Go hit your head on the wall and wait patiently for a sorrowful judgement.

Who wants to be drawn to a bloodthirsty, murdering god? I consider myself and the world fortunate that we are not all hypocritical and a liar like you. We are only concerned about you deluded goons who can wake up tomorrow and tell us your idiotic god has commanded you to kill us all.

duduspace:

Who wants to be drawn to a bloodthirsty, murdering god? I consider myself and the world fortunate that we are not all hypocritical and a liar like you. We are only concerned about you deluded goons who can wake up tomorrow and tell us your idiotic god has commanded you to kill us all.

Sounds like a pathetic cop-out to me. If this was your sincere worry, all of you shld be camping on the muslim section. you're more likely to be killed by a freak accident than a horde of christians.

davidylan:

Sounds like a pathetic cop-out to me. If this was your sincere worry, all of you shld be camping on the muslim section. you're more likely to be killed by a freak accident than a horde of christians.

what about those killed by christians in the past also? and what about the Jim Jones, David Koresh and Rev. King types? As long as you peeps continue to perpetuate your religious lies, we will always have such people lurking in the background even if most in the mainstream are peaceful.
The danger to us aside, a lie is still a lie no matter how you dress it up.

duduspace:

what about those killed by christians in the past also? and what about the Jim Jones, David Koresh and Rev. King types? As long as you peeps continue to perpetuate your religious lies, we will always have such people lurking in the background even if most in the mainstream are peaceful.
The danger to us aside, a lie is still a lie no matter how you dress it up.

You can as well add George Bush to the list too, he believes he is was fighting a holy war for his god in Iraq.

I will try to answer some of your questions.

duduspace:

1. According to you God is beyond reality right? but we live in reality how then can one relate to something that is beyond reality using reality based concepts like prayer e.t.c.

We live in a concept of reality. Atheists believe that it is all there is. I don't see any logical reason for it being all there is.

2. How can your reality based mind really comprehend a God beyond reality? how then can anyone claim to be speaking for such a God beyond reality? or that anything such a god does is of any significance in reality

Comprehension is a strong word. One can only believe that one comprehends.

3. If god is beyond reality, why bother with him when we live in reality?

Again, I would point out that the material world is a concept of reality. Study the philospopher Descartes. you will see his famous words "I think, therefore I am". What he means by this is that the only thing he can be utterly sure of is that he (and only he) exists. Everything else is a result of material sensory input. There is no way that he can be certain of anything excpet for the fact that he (and only he) exists. Personally, I think, therefore I am, but to me it is logical that I was created or am part of something else. Therefore, the only two certainties are myself and that something else - my God.

4. In a way, can there ever be a single definition/classification of something beyond reality? or in other words doesn't each person/society therefore define this esoteric being in his/their own way i.e. creating their own gods?

Yes, we define our Gods. But we also let religion do that for us too. I personally choose Christianity simply because I like the message. But that's not to say that religion is just a waste of time. We could speculate that your whole reality is the creation of your god, therefore everything in it is put there to lead you forward - including religion.

5. Can't we all just face up to the truth that we are all groping in the dark here?

I wouldn't say groping. "Searching" would be a better word. I look upon it as trying to see what lies beyond the veil.

I would rather say that you have made up or you are making up your god as you go along and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The difference between lunacy and genius is often a thin line.

To a certain extent I would say as my knowledge evolves, so my view of my God evolves. It doesn't mean that I'm making it all up though. I try to base my beliefs in a founding of logic and don't tend to just jump in head first.
The one thing that probably makes me different though, is that I could choose to give my God up. I don't worship because I have to. I worship because I want to. I worship simply because I believe, that just like me, God is.

Bastage:

Comprehension is a strong word. One can only believe that one comprehends.

Again, I would point out that the material world is a concept of reality. Study the philospopher Descartes. you will see his famous words "I think, therefore I am". What he means by this is that the only thing he can be utterly sure of is that he (and only he) exists. Everything else is a result of material sensory input. There is no way that he can be certain of anything excpet for the fact that he (and only he) exists. Personally, I think, therefore I am, but to me it is logical that I was created or am part of something else. Therefore, the only two certainties are myself and that something else - my God.

I think I get your point and I do respect your position because it is obviously one that has proceeded from deep thought, goes to show that there is a lot that lies beneath initially simple statements.
Am I then right in saying that God in this instance could be the evolutionary process that produced man (if evolution turns out to be true), the intelligence that brought about creation (if creation turns out to be true) or any other myriad of possibilities our puny minds cannot even begin to comprehend?

Bastage:


Yes, we define our Gods. But we also let religion do that for us too. I personally choose Christianity simply because I like the message. But that's not to say that religion is just a waste of time. We could speculate that your whole reality is the creation of your god, therefore everything in it is put there to lead you forward - including religion.

I wouldn't say groping. "Searching" would be a better word. I look upon it as trying to see what lies beyond the veil.

We are not much different, I also appreciate Jesus Christ's message which still forms the bedrock of my morality but that is in total isolation from the hog wash jumble of books called the bible and the personalty cult that grew round the person (which he never initiated) and which has subsequently evolved into the confused rabble we now call christianity.

I agree searching would be a more comforting word, akin to seeing the glass half full rather than half empty.

Also, I don't think Religion is a waste of time I only beleive it should be seen for what it is i.e. speculation at its best and outright lies at its worst (which seems to be norm). There is a very big difference between "I think God exists" or "I believe God's existence is a possibility" and "I know God exists and this is what he says".

Bastage:


To a certain extent I would say as my knowledge evolves, so my view of my God evolves. It doesn't mean that I'm making it all up though. I try to base my beliefs in a founding of logic and don't tend to just jump in head first.
The one thing that probably makes me different though, is that I could choose to give my God up. I don't worship because I have to. I worship because I want to. I worship simply because I believe, that just like me, God is.

We are not much different Bastage, you have only chosen to give an unbounded number the label infinity while I've chosen to continue referring to it as unbounded.

@duduspace and co.
You're getting it all wrong. David has explained it to you but I'll just add this to help. What you're missing about John6v44 and the other references is that God has done His part. He's done what He needs to do about your and my salvation. All you need to do is respond.
'No one can come to me except the Father draw him', yes. The question should be when will that be? Your thought is that maybe He'll draw this one and not draw the other one. But what does the Bible say? What does Jesus say? The Bible says we have already been DRAWN. He has drawn all men, everybody. Thats what I quoted in John12v32.
And I(Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, WILL DRAW ALL men UNTO me.
This he said, signifying what death he should die.
The Bible, the same John's gospel says He'll draw all men when Jesus was lifted up i.e crucified. Jesus has been crucified, all men have been drawn. Its now up to every individual to 'draw nigh' as Davidylan quoted.
You know, the beautiful thing about the Bible is that it is complete. Thats the way you can benefit from it, in its complete form. Picking and choosing one phrase, verse or book will likely confuse and condemn you. The Bible verses are best understood in the light of the whole scriptures. You're not to hold one and run while denying the other part(s). The scripture is replete with passages that tell everyone to come and receive Christ freely. You cant hold 1or2 passages as evidence and true and be in denial of the cloud of evidence that suggest otherwise. WHOSOEVER will, let him come.
One thing that must be said though is that we all come on God's terms. We come by grace. We become saved, christians, followers of God by grace, not by our good works. That comes later. You don't put the cart before the horse. Our works and piety is not what brings us to Jesus, its the grace, mercy of God. No man can come to me, except the Father draw him. The Father has drawn. The grace of God has appeared to ALL men. Thats what runs all through the new testament. That grace is available for you. Jesus can save the worst and the best of sinners. All you need to do is believe it. Whosoever believes in Jesus has eternal, everlasting life.

I was brought up in the Christian faith, and while I have the freewill to change my religion, I have choosen not to. I am a Christian because the Founder, Jesus Christ is Alive and lives forever. The founders of other religion are dead. So, why would I serve a dead person when the Founder of Christianity is Living? I will rather serve a Living God over a dead mortal.

Does this answer your question?

duduspace:

Am I then right in saying that God in this instance could be the evolutionary process that produced man (if evolution turns out to be true), the intelligence that brought about creation (if creation turns out to be true) or any other myriad of possibilities our puny minds cannot even begin to comprehend?

My guy, I do not dispute evolution. But I look at it through eyes that judge on the material realism that I exist in. To me, evolution makes sense. Creationism is a literal definition of the Bible that has no foundation in logic.
Within the reality that we exist in we have choices to make. Not always free choices but choices none the less. I am guided to believe that the form in which I exist was created by evolution. But as I mentioned earlier, I try to look beyond the veil. To me, evolution or creationism are just distractions. The real me (and you) are not bound by their physical meanings. The theories of creationism and evolution are only things used to describe our physical being. We exist beyond them.

We are not much different, I also appreciate Jesus Christ's message which still forms the bedrock of my morality but that is in total isolation from the hog wash jumble of books called the bible and the personalty cult that grew round the person (which he never initiated) and which has subsequently evolved into the confused rabble we now call christianity.

I hear you. Bear in mind though that an individual can also be a rabble if he is confused by the many voices in his heart. Christian churches are just the same but on a larger scale if you don't try to exert control over yourself and let them overwhelm you. Any answer lies with you and you alone. Personally, I see the Bible as the most interesting book ever written. I've stated time and time again that one has to study the context in which it was written to understand it though. But even then, it's deeper message can only be defined by you and you alone.

There is a very big difference between "I think God exists"  or "I believe God's existence is a possibility" and "I know God exists and this is what he says".

On a philosophical level there is no difference between belief and knowledge. Again, you only have yourself to judge as the measurement. If you believe in your own judgement then you have a knowledge.

We are not much different Bastage, you have only chosen to give an unbounded number the label infinity while I've chosen to continue referring to it as unbounded.

What is an unbounded number if it is not infinite? Are you saying that an unbounded number has an end? To me, the number is like Pi - it goes on forever. We know Pi exists and that it is infinite so why can we not apply that same idea to our beliefs?

Bastage:

My guy, I do not dispute evolution. But I look at it through eyes that judge on the material realism that I exist in. To me, evolution makes sense. Creationism is a literal definition of the Bible that has no foundation in logic.
Within the reality that we exist in we have choices to make. Not always free choices but choices none the less. I am guided to believe that the form in which I exist was created by evolution. But as I mentioned earlier, I try to look beyond the veil. To me, evolution or creationism are just distractions. The real me (and you) are not bound by their physical meanings. The theories of creationism and evolution are only things used to describe our physical being. We exist beyond them.


I hear you. Bear in mind though that an individual can also be a rabble if he is confused by the many voices in his heart. Christian churches are just the same but on a larger scale if you don't try to exert control over yourself and let them overwhelm you. Any answer lies with you and you alone. Personally, I see the Bible as the most interesting book ever written. I've stated time and time again that one has to study the context in which it was written to understand it though. But even then, it's deeper message can only be defined by you and you alone.


[size=14pt]On a philosophical level there is no difference between belief and knowledge. Again, you only have yourself to judge as the measurement. If you believe in your own judgement then you have a knowledge.
[/size]

What is an unbounded number if it is not infinite? Are you saying that an unbounded number has an end? To me, the number is like Pi - it goes on forever. We know Pi exists and that it is infinite so why can we not apply that same idea to our beliefs?

Any epistemologist would be mortified to read this - that tthere is no difference between belief and knowledge. Let me illustrate this with a little common day example;

Supposing, you were asked by a friend or colleague the following question; When was the first moon-landing? And you gave one of the following responses:

1) I belief it was in 1973.

2) I know it was in 1973.

Which of the above attempts to convey sure and certain knowledge? Which attempts to convey a conjecture?


On a simplistic level, knowledge is generally defined as "true and justified belief". It is NOT just any old belief, it MUST be TRUE and JUSTIFIED, to be considered as knowledge. I know there are other more subtle and sophisticated definitions, but none of them equates belief and knowledge. And further, there are major issues about how a belief is justified, a subject about whichh there are no universally agreed methodologies.

Huxley.

Before you start burbling more irrelevant drivel again, read my words.
On a "philosophical" level. Not on a "material" level.

Bastage:

Huxley.

Before you start burbling more irrelevant drivel again, read my words.
On a "philosophical" level. Not on a "material" level.

What do you mean by "material" level and how is that different from a "philosophical" level? Are you suggesting that the definition I gave is a "material" definition?

Bastage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

How is this [solipsism] relevant to this discussion?

Are you being stupid on purpose or are you just incredibly shallow?


You emboldened and questioned my statement: "On a philosophical level there is no difference between belief and knowledge."

Solipsism explains that everything is a belief except for I think therefore I am. Therefore all knowledge except for I think therefore I am is a belief. Therefore there is no difference between belief and knowledge on a philosophical level.

Personally I think a huge percentage of people are religious because of the after life belief.
I admire your position bastage but no matter how I look at it the Christian God is either very very cruel or does not exist.
If a God exists on the other hand why even bother, it will be like a goat trying to learn astrophysics.

Chrisbenogor:

If a God exists on the other hand why even bother, it will be like a goat trying to learn astrophysics.

If you believe in evolution (as I do), then you will be aware that monkeys have learnt astrophysics.

Bastage:

Are you being stupid on purpose or are you just incredibly shallow?


You emboldened and questioned my statement: "On a philosophical level there is no difference between belief and knowledge."

Solipsism explains that everything is a belief except for I think therefore I am. Therefore all knowledge except for I think therefore I am is a belief. Therefore there is no difference between belief and knowledge on a philosophical level.

OK, I shall ignore the insults and go straight to the substance or non-substance in this case.  This is the definition of solipsism from the Wikipedia link you provided:

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.


Some question:

1) To what extend is this generally and universally accepted and truly representing the state of reality?

2)  Solipsism hold that common-sense objects like cars, chairs, goats  cannot be known to exists?  Do you agree with this position?

3)  If you do, then you must also agree that ALL my posts on NL are actually your posts, to the extent that they exist.  Or they do not actually exist?

Bastage:

If you believe in evolution (as I do), then you will be aware that monkeys have learnt astrophysics.

How does [believing] in evolution have anything to do with learning astrophysics? I do not see how these are related in anyway.

By the way, to say one believes in evolution is like saying one believes in gravity, of atoms, or bacteria. It is simply nonsense. It is better to say:

1) I accept evolution as true,

if you mean to say "I believe in evolution".

You haven't read a word of the link or anything I've written have you?

How can I say that evolution is true when I can't even prove that anything other than myself exists?
Everything is a belief.




Prove to me that you exist, Huxley.

To put it simply - you can't.

Bastage:

You haven't read a word of the link or anything I've written have you?

How can I say that evolution is true when I can't even prove that anything other than myself exists?
Everything is a belief.




Prove to me that you exist, Huxley.

To put it simply - you can't.

Who is it who said this?

Bastage:

If you believe in evolution (as I do), then you will be aware that monkeys have learnt astrophysics.

There you are - clearly identifying two things, namely yourself [/b]and [b]evolution.  And you say you believe in it.  How can you hold onto sollipsism, and at the same time believe in the existence of something (evolution) outside yourself?  This is a contradiction.

huxley2:

There you are - clearly identifying two things, namely yourself [/b]and [b]evolution.  And you say you believe in it.  How can you hold onto sollipsism, and at the same time believe in the existence of something (evolution) outside yourself?  This is a contradiction.

Shallow, Huxley. Very shallow.

You can't prove that evolution is "outside yourself". For all you know it is a theory that you created and then forgot about as you play a computer game in a simulated world. There is nothing to stop you from believing that you are your own god and that everything is a result of the game you are playing - you merely don't remember because you programmed the game so that you don't remember. If you created your perceived material it's hardly "outside yourself" is it.


I can believe in whatever I want to. I can claim any of those beliefs to be knowledge. They are as interchangeable as I want them to be. That is the essence of solipsism. That belief and knowledge may not always hold true in the material world but as the material world cannot be proven to exist, they cannot be proven to be wrong.

To put it another way:

I believe in a material world.
I believe human beings exist.
I believe the scientific evidence.
I believe in evolution.

All are beliefs. None can be said to be truths unless I choose them to be so as I am the master of my own truths (just as you are with yours).


You still haven't answered my challenge.
Prove to me that you exist.

Bastage:

Shallow, Huxley. Very shallow.

You can't prove that evolution is "outside yourself". For all you know it is a theory that you created and then forgot about as you play a computer game in a simulated world. There is nothing to stop you from believing that you are your own god and that everything is a result of the game you are playing - you merely don't remember because you programmed the game so that you don't remember. If you created your perceived material it's hardly "outside yourself" is it.


I can believe in whatever I want to. I can claim any of those beliefs to be knowledge. They are as interchangeable as I want them to be. That is the essence of solipsism. That belief and knowledge may not always hold true in the material world but as the material world cannot be proven to exist, they cannot be proven to be wrong.

To put it another way:

I believe in a material world.
I believe human beings exist.
I believe the scientific evidence.
I believe in evolution.

All are beliefs. None can be said to be truths unless I choose them to be so as I am the master of my own truths (just as you are with yours).


You still haven't answered my challenge.
Prove to me that you exist.

If Sollipsism is the position you hold, it is for you to prove that it is true. It cannot be true by default. I might as well come up with any other crackpot theory and ask you to prove it wrong. There is an infinitude of such crackpot theories and the fact that hardly anyone goes about proving them wrong does not mean that they are right by default.

LMAO. Solipsism is a crackpot theory? To prove it correct, all I have to do is not believe in you. Instead I can believe that you are just some computer generated reply machine that I programmed for this very instance.
Read about Solipsism, Huxley. It's a philosophy for the individual. Only the individual can prove it to be true. On the other hand, nobody can prove it to be false.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Prove to me that you exist.


You see Huxley, the very fact that you cannot prove anything means that Solipsism has you by the balls.

I might as well come up with any other crackpot theory and ask you to prove it wrong.

Like atheism?

Ndipe:

I was brought up in the Christian faith, and while I have the freewill to change my religion, I have choosen not to. I am a Christian because the Founder, Jesus Christ is Alive and lives forever. The founders of other religion are dead. So, why would I serve a dead person when the Founder of Christianity is Living? I will rather serve a Living God over a dead mortal.

Does this answer your question?

the case for christianity is only logical and reasonable to the person who has faith (based on NO facts) that everything about it is true. . . . . . .